Status, legitimacy and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger

Adopting an intergroup perspective, the research was designed to examine predictors of employee responses to an organizational merger. Data were collected from 120 employees of a newly merged scientific organization. As predicted from social identity theory, the most negative responses to the merger were apparent among the employees of the low status premerger organization. There was also evidence of ingroup bias among both groups of employees involved in the merger—as expected, the bias was most marked on the status-irrelevant dimensions for the employees of the lower status organization, but most marked on the status-relevant dimensions for the employees of the high status organization. Also, in support of social identity theory, the perceived legitimacy of the basis for the status differentiation between the groups was associated with more positive responses to the merger among employees of the low status premerger organization, but with poorer responses among employees of the high status premerger organization. There was consistent evidence that the status by legitimacy interaction was mediated through the extent to which employees of the newly merged organization perceived a common ingroup identity

Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: An intergroup perspective

Adopting an intergroup perspective, the research was designed to examine predictors of employee responses to an organizational merger Data were collected from 465 fleet staff employed in a newly merged airline company. As predicted from social identity theory, the negative effects of the merger were most marked for employees of the low-status premerger organization. Also, as predicted, the perception of permeable intergroup boundaries in the new organization was associated positively with identification with the new organization and both job-related and person-related outcomes among employees of the low-status premerger organization but negatively with person-related outcomes among employees of the high-status premerger organization. As predicted, there was some evidence that the main and interactive effects involving status, perceived permeability, and intergroup contact on employee adjustment were mediated through strength of identification with the new organization.

Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change

We comment critically on the notion that teachers can experience ownership of curriculum change. The evidence base for this commentary is our work on two curriculum development projects in health and physical education between 1993 and 1998. Applying a theoretical framework adapted from Bernstein's writing on the social construction of pedagogic discourse, we contend that the possibilities for teacher ownership of curriculum change are circumscribed by the anchoring of their authority to speak on curriculum matters in the local context of implementation. We argue that this anchoring of teacher voice provides a key to understanding the perennial problem of the transformation of innovative ideas from conception to implementation. We also provide some insights into the extent to which genuine participation by teachers in education reform might be possible, and we conclude with a discussion of the possibilities that exist for partnerships in reforming health and physical education.